|
|
On November 08 2012 03:14 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 03:12 kmillz wrote:
Nate Silver has earned my respect. Excellent predictions : ( I preferred xDaunt.
What was the bet he lost anyway?
|
On November 08 2012 03:07 ampson wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 02:58 ZasZ. wrote:On November 08 2012 02:25 ampson wrote:On November 08 2012 02:16 BlueLanterna wrote:On November 08 2012 01:57 ampson wrote:On November 08 2012 01:48 Chargelot wrote:On November 08 2012 01:43 ampson wrote:On November 07 2012 22:09 Monsen wrote:On November 07 2012 21:42 Poorlilrich wrote:On November 07 2012 21:36 konadora wrote:
i have never been to america but i honestly wanted obama to win for the sake for america, its citizens and the world. so glad obama won and america proving it still had some humanity and common sense left in them. based on what exactly, you didnt like the big bad republican like everyone else? im not sure why people are celebrating so hard, nothing has changed and obama will continue to run up the debt to astronomical levels until investors are so shit scared of spending money in america that the market will recede harder than it did the first time. but gay marriage and free contraception are all that matters, right? That, and avoiding a president from an anti science, anti intellectual, faith over reason base of evangelical lunatics. (You know, the ones that have taken over the republican party in the last decade+ and are now getting the tinfoil hats out, because President Satan Mc Blacky will not only ruin the economy but also come and take away their guns/bibles.) Sorry, but the w/rest of the world is kinda big on basing decisions on Science and Reason and would like the "leader of the free world" to share those values. Thus the celebrating. No offense to people wearing magic underwear of course, to each his own. You clearly know very little about Mitt Romney, conservatism, the United States, or the republican party. So, fuck you. All Germans are clearly asshats like you (I can generalize too!). His assessment was not extremely off. Science expenditures by the federal gov't have been higher under republican leadership in the past 20 years, with the exception of Obama's stimulus, which blew up spending everywhere. Fact. Mitt Romney's stance is that evolution, not ID or creationism should be taught in class rooms. Fact. I fail to see how this is anti-intellectual. Only about half of the Republican Party is evangelical and guess what? Religion is not an indicator of anti-intellectualism. There aren't a ton of tinfoil hats and nobody is calling Obama Satan McBlacky. His assessment was very far off. Anti-intellectual does not directly entail that he believes ID should be taught in the classroom, you have to extrapolate his view that "federal government does not belong in education", so passing off the responsibility to the state and local level WOULD be anti-intellectual, it would mean that all the assholes who want to push for their version of history, their version of american politics, etc. would be free to do so as they please without oversight from the federal government, just like they've done with our textbooks in TX. And actually, there are a lot of people calling Obama "Satan" and the anti-Christ and all sorts of other things, where have you been the past 4 years? And you're making a false correlation between evangelism and religion in this situation, evangelism and adhering to it undoubtedly gives you a more anti-intellectual stance on some issues because your rationale is not being informed by facts, only by your religious text and whatever interpretation you and whoever around you creates of it. Also I'd like to know where you got these "science" numbers from, they must be drastically different from something like the NASA budget, which has fallen in every administration except the Clinton years since Kennedy I said in the past 20 years, as that is the most accurate representation of recent policies. ![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7d/U.S._research_funding.png/800px-U.S._research_funding.png) There's the graph. The spike in spending is the stimulus, which blew up spending in every category. No mainstream republican has been calling obama satan in the past four years, you are looking at radicals with nothing to lose and assuming it's true of an entire party. They have said that he is ineffective and a bad leader, yes. Satan, no. Bush actually increased the NASA budget. And no, I will not equate evangelicalism with anti-intellectualism. Making decisions with morals based on religion is not stupid, it is what is seen by many as character. Obviously some might not agree, but the republican party is definitely not anti-intellectual. There is a difference between making decisions with morals based on religion and believing something despite factual evidence based on religion. While I don't agree with their brand of morals, I can respect people who oppose gay marriage or abortion because of their religious values. It's not my place to question the basis for someone else's ethical beliefs. The reason evangelicals are associated with anti-intellectualism is because they flat out refuse intellectualism. The theory of evolution can fit into religious teachings, but they flat out refuse factual evidence. Not to mention that you have prominent evangelical Republicans (Santorum) coming out and publicly saying they don't want to be associated with intellectuals. When a man almost nominated for the presidential ticket comes forward to say that ignorance is his preferred mode of operation, it's worrisome to the rest of us. They shun education and intelligence like it's a disease America is currently suffering from. It's disturbing, quite frankly, and brings down the rest of the Republican base that is intellectual and is just looking for a more conservative political party than the Democrats without dealing with the crazy religious nuts. Not sure which Santorum comment you are referring to, but I'll assume it's the "snob" comment directed towards Obama. That was just saying that a college education is not the right choice for everyone. Nowhere has Santorum straight- up said intellectualism is bad. Anyways, there's a reason that the man wasn't elected. Evangelicals are not a majority of the Republican party as the first poster (who was a douche) said they were. Crazy evangelicals who flat out refuse anything scientific are a VERY small minority within the party, while he was generalizing that the entire republican party was this way.
iirc, the comment that Obama made was that he wants everyone to have 'some' sort of post secondary education, whether that be university, community college, skilled trade or whatever. To which Santorum called him a snob.
|
On November 08 2012 03:07 ampson wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 02:58 ZasZ. wrote:On November 08 2012 02:25 ampson wrote:On November 08 2012 02:16 BlueLanterna wrote:On November 08 2012 01:57 ampson wrote:On November 08 2012 01:48 Chargelot wrote:On November 08 2012 01:43 ampson wrote:On November 07 2012 22:09 Monsen wrote:On November 07 2012 21:42 Poorlilrich wrote:On November 07 2012 21:36 konadora wrote:
i have never been to america but i honestly wanted obama to win for the sake for america, its citizens and the world. so glad obama won and america proving it still had some humanity and common sense left in them. based on what exactly, you didnt like the big bad republican like everyone else? im not sure why people are celebrating so hard, nothing has changed and obama will continue to run up the debt to astronomical levels until investors are so shit scared of spending money in america that the market will recede harder than it did the first time. but gay marriage and free contraception are all that matters, right? That, and avoiding a president from an anti science, anti intellectual, faith over reason base of evangelical lunatics. (You know, the ones that have taken over the republican party in the last decade+ and are now getting the tinfoil hats out, because President Satan Mc Blacky will not only ruin the economy but also come and take away their guns/bibles.) Sorry, but the w/rest of the world is kinda big on basing decisions on Science and Reason and would like the "leader of the free world" to share those values. Thus the celebrating. No offense to people wearing magic underwear of course, to each his own. You clearly know very little about Mitt Romney, conservatism, the United States, or the republican party. So, fuck you. All Germans are clearly asshats like you (I can generalize too!). His assessment was not extremely off. Science expenditures by the federal gov't have been higher under republican leadership in the past 20 years, with the exception of Obama's stimulus, which blew up spending everywhere. Fact. Mitt Romney's stance is that evolution, not ID or creationism should be taught in class rooms. Fact. I fail to see how this is anti-intellectual. Only about half of the Republican Party is evangelical and guess what? Religion is not an indicator of anti-intellectualism. There aren't a ton of tinfoil hats and nobody is calling Obama Satan McBlacky. His assessment was very far off. Anti-intellectual does not directly entail that he believes ID should be taught in the classroom, you have to extrapolate his view that "federal government does not belong in education", so passing off the responsibility to the state and local level WOULD be anti-intellectual, it would mean that all the assholes who want to push for their version of history, their version of american politics, etc. would be free to do so as they please without oversight from the federal government, just like they've done with our textbooks in TX. And actually, there are a lot of people calling Obama "Satan" and the anti-Christ and all sorts of other things, where have you been the past 4 years? And you're making a false correlation between evangelism and religion in this situation, evangelism and adhering to it undoubtedly gives you a more anti-intellectual stance on some issues because your rationale is not being informed by facts, only by your religious text and whatever interpretation you and whoever around you creates of it. Also I'd like to know where you got these "science" numbers from, they must be drastically different from something like the NASA budget, which has fallen in every administration except the Clinton years since Kennedy I said in the past 20 years, as that is the most accurate representation of recent policies. There's the graph. The spike in spending is the stimulus, which blew up spending in every category. No mainstream republican has been calling obama satan in the past four years, you are looking at radicals with nothing to lose and assuming it's true of an entire party. They have said that he is ineffective and a bad leader, yes. Satan, no. Bush actually increased the NASA budget. And no, I will not equate evangelicalism with anti-intellectualism. Making decisions with morals based on religion is not stupid, it is what is seen by many as character. Obviously some might not agree, but the republican party is definitely not anti-intellectual. There is a difference between making decisions with morals based on religion and believing something despite factual evidence based on religion. While I don't agree with their brand of morals, I can respect people who oppose gay marriage or abortion because of their religious values. It's not my place to question the basis for someone else's ethical beliefs. The reason evangelicals are associated with anti-intellectualism is because they flat out refuse intellectualism. The theory of evolution can fit into religious teachings, but they flat out refuse factual evidence. Not to mention that you have prominent evangelical Republicans (Santorum) coming out and publicly saying they don't want to be associated with intellectuals. When a man almost nominated for the presidential ticket comes forward to say that ignorance is his preferred mode of operation, it's worrisome to the rest of us. They shun education and intelligence like it's a disease America is currently suffering from. It's disturbing, quite frankly, and brings down the rest of the Republican base that is intellectual and is just looking for a more conservative political party than the Democrats without dealing with the crazy religious nuts. Not sure which Santorum comment you are referring to, but I'll assume it's the "snob" comment directed towards Obama. That was just saying that a college education is not the right choice for everyone. Nowhere has Santorum straight- up said intellectualism is bad. Anyways, there's a reason that the man wasn't elected. Evangelicals are not a majority of the Republican party as the first poster (who was a douche) said they were. Crazy evangelicals who flat out refuse anything scientific are a VERY small minority within the party, while he was generalizing that the entire republican party was this way.
Can't find the exact quote from a reputable source after a quick internet search, but it was something like "Intellectuals will never be on our side." If you have ostracized the educated voter-base to the point where they will "never be on your side," that is an issue.
But you're right, there is a reason Republicans didn't choose him for the national ticket, and I am glad there isn't a larger evangelical presence within the Republican party. Unfortunately for the rest of you, this small evangelical minority is by far the most vocal and most visible portion of the party. Blame that on where the money is or the liberal media, it doesn't matter, but the point is that moderate voters like myself, who want to reel in government spending and be more conservative fiscally, but not compromise on important social issues like gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, or abortion absolutely cannot associate ourselves with that evangelical minority that is fueled by hate and ignorance.
I agree with the posters calling for a split in the Republican party. If an actual contender could come forward who really believes in limited government, including not getting involved with marriage rights, abortion, etc. I would have backed them in a heartbeat in this election.
|
On November 08 2012 03:16 Monsen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 01:43 ampson wrote:On November 07 2012 22:09 Monsen wrote:On November 07 2012 21:42 Poorlilrich wrote:On November 07 2012 21:36 konadora wrote:
i have never been to america but i honestly wanted obama to win for the sake for america, its citizens and the world. so glad obama won and america proving it still had some humanity and common sense left in them. based on what exactly, you didnt like the big bad republican like everyone else? im not sure why people are celebrating so hard, nothing has changed and obama will continue to run up the debt to astronomical levels until investors are so shit scared of spending money in america that the market will recede harder than it did the first time. but gay marriage and free contraception are all that matters, right? That, and avoiding a president from an anti science, anti intellectual, faith over reason base of evangelical lunatics. (You know, the ones that have taken over the republican party in the last decade+ and are now getting the tinfoil hats out, because President Satan Mc Blacky will not only ruin the economy but also come and take away their guns/bibles.) Sorry, but the w/rest of the world is kinda big on basing decisions on Science and Reason and would like the "leader of the free world" to share those values. Thus the celebrating. No offense to people wearing magic underwear of course, to each his own. You clearly know very little about Mitt Romney, conservatism, the United States, or the republican party. So, fuck you. All Germans are clearly asshats like you (I can generalize too!). Ironically, you, my friend, need to learn to read better. Just a few little pointers for you to start off: 1. I did comment on the republican base, not Mitt Romney. 2. My comment explained (or tried to) the overwhelming relief that the rest of the world expresses over Obamas reelection. It was a reply to someone wondering about the huuuuuge numbers Obama has over Romney all over the world (maybe you should too). So even IF my assessment was completely wrong factually (some seem to think it's not that far off), it's still what a lot of people overseas think and thus a valid explanation. Sorry u mad.
You comment on the republican base. Mitt Romney was their candidate and his views on represented the views of at least the MAJORITY of the party. Your assessment was wrong factually and even if it's what people overseas think it is wrong and a complete asshole move to generalize roughly 49% of the United States population based on very few radical evangelicals. I was unaware that your views represented those of the entire world. And even if the entire world is going to think this than I will tell them the same thing that I told you. Generalizing this many people based on this few people is NOT valid. People overseas must be remarkably misinformed if that is truly the majority opinion.
|
Not all evangelicals are like that 
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it's really a testament to the crazy shit republicans say when a quote like "The Smart People Will Never Be On Our Side" isn't even that memorable on the shock scale
|
On November 08 2012 03:25 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 03:07 ampson wrote:On November 08 2012 02:58 ZasZ. wrote:On November 08 2012 02:25 ampson wrote:On November 08 2012 02:16 BlueLanterna wrote:On November 08 2012 01:57 ampson wrote:On November 08 2012 01:48 Chargelot wrote:On November 08 2012 01:43 ampson wrote:On November 07 2012 22:09 Monsen wrote:On November 07 2012 21:42 Poorlilrich wrote:
[quote]
based on what exactly, you didnt like the big bad republican like everyone else? im not sure why people are celebrating so hard, nothing has changed and obama will continue to run up the debt to astronomical levels until investors are so shit scared of spending money in america that the market will recede harder than it did the first time. but gay marriage and free contraception are all that matters, right? That, and avoiding a president from an anti science, anti intellectual, faith over reason base of evangelical lunatics. (You know, the ones that have taken over the republican party in the last decade+ and are now getting the tinfoil hats out, because President Satan Mc Blacky will not only ruin the economy but also come and take away their guns/bibles.) Sorry, but the w/rest of the world is kinda big on basing decisions on Science and Reason and would like the "leader of the free world" to share those values. Thus the celebrating. No offense to people wearing magic underwear of course, to each his own. You clearly know very little about Mitt Romney, conservatism, the United States, or the republican party. So, fuck you. All Germans are clearly asshats like you (I can generalize too!). His assessment was not extremely off. Science expenditures by the federal gov't have been higher under republican leadership in the past 20 years, with the exception of Obama's stimulus, which blew up spending everywhere. Fact. Mitt Romney's stance is that evolution, not ID or creationism should be taught in class rooms. Fact. I fail to see how this is anti-intellectual. Only about half of the Republican Party is evangelical and guess what? Religion is not an indicator of anti-intellectualism. There aren't a ton of tinfoil hats and nobody is calling Obama Satan McBlacky. His assessment was very far off. Anti-intellectual does not directly entail that he believes ID should be taught in the classroom, you have to extrapolate his view that "federal government does not belong in education", so passing off the responsibility to the state and local level WOULD be anti-intellectual, it would mean that all the assholes who want to push for their version of history, their version of american politics, etc. would be free to do so as they please without oversight from the federal government, just like they've done with our textbooks in TX. And actually, there are a lot of people calling Obama "Satan" and the anti-Christ and all sorts of other things, where have you been the past 4 years? And you're making a false correlation between evangelism and religion in this situation, evangelism and adhering to it undoubtedly gives you a more anti-intellectual stance on some issues because your rationale is not being informed by facts, only by your religious text and whatever interpretation you and whoever around you creates of it. Also I'd like to know where you got these "science" numbers from, they must be drastically different from something like the NASA budget, which has fallen in every administration except the Clinton years since Kennedy I said in the past 20 years, as that is the most accurate representation of recent policies. There's the graph. The spike in spending is the stimulus, which blew up spending in every category. No mainstream republican has been calling obama satan in the past four years, you are looking at radicals with nothing to lose and assuming it's true of an entire party. They have said that he is ineffective and a bad leader, yes. Satan, no. Bush actually increased the NASA budget. And no, I will not equate evangelicalism with anti-intellectualism. Making decisions with morals based on religion is not stupid, it is what is seen by many as character. Obviously some might not agree, but the republican party is definitely not anti-intellectual. There is a difference between making decisions with morals based on religion and believing something despite factual evidence based on religion. While I don't agree with their brand of morals, I can respect people who oppose gay marriage or abortion because of their religious values. It's not my place to question the basis for someone else's ethical beliefs. The reason evangelicals are associated with anti-intellectualism is because they flat out refuse intellectualism. The theory of evolution can fit into religious teachings, but they flat out refuse factual evidence. Not to mention that you have prominent evangelical Republicans (Santorum) coming out and publicly saying they don't want to be associated with intellectuals. When a man almost nominated for the presidential ticket comes forward to say that ignorance is his preferred mode of operation, it's worrisome to the rest of us. They shun education and intelligence like it's a disease America is currently suffering from. It's disturbing, quite frankly, and brings down the rest of the Republican base that is intellectual and is just looking for a more conservative political party than the Democrats without dealing with the crazy religious nuts. Not sure which Santorum comment you are referring to, but I'll assume it's the "snob" comment directed towards Obama. That was just saying that a college education is not the right choice for everyone. Nowhere has Santorum straight- up said intellectualism is bad. Anyways, there's a reason that the man wasn't elected. Evangelicals are not a majority of the Republican party as the first poster (who was a douche) said they were. Crazy evangelicals who flat out refuse anything scientific are a VERY small minority within the party, while he was generalizing that the entire republican party was this way. Can't find the exact quote from a reputable source after a quick internet search, but it was something like "Intellectuals will never be on our side." If you have ostracized the educated voter-base to the point where they will "never be on your side," that is an issue. But you're right, there is a reason Republicans didn't choose him for the national ticket, and I am glad there isn't a larger evangelical presence within the Republican party. Unfortunately for the rest of you, this small evangelical minority is by far the most vocal and most visible portion of the party. Blame that on where the money is or the liberal media, it doesn't matter, but the point is that moderate voters like myself, who want to reel in government spending and be more conservative fiscally, but not compromise on important social issues like gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, or abortion absolutely cannot associate ourselves with that evangelical minority that is fueled by hate and ignorance. I agree with the posters calling for a split in the Republican party. If an actual contender could come forward who really believes in limited government, including not getting involved with marriage rights, abortion, etc. I would have backed them in a heartbeat in this election.
Did you vote Gary Johnson? He's your man. Sadly, the Libertarian party is very small.
Also, Santorum said something like smart people will never be on our side when he had already lost the primary. He was just mouthing off, and said it at like a dinner or something. He was speaking to lower-class Americans and meant something along the lines of "liberal elite" when he said smart. I don't condone anything he does, but that's the explanation.
|
Its a bad time to be an american voter, im all for obama beating romney, but its sadly disgusting how little options you guys have when voting
Its like choosing between burgers and hotdogs, the difference is marginal, democrats are prone to internal disagreements and caving in to every republican hate-move
And repubs are the flaming guy that doesnt want the fire to be out because god is gonna save him
|
On November 08 2012 02:47 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 02:42 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 08 2012 02:26 Probe1 wrote:
I think the funniest thing on news networks last night (outside of Fox News obviously) were the people saying Republicans need to get more of the Latino vote. Here's a great way to start: Stop the official policy of trying to deport them.
Idiots. Not all latinos are illegal immigrants. Idiots. You don't think friends/family being deported weighs on the Latino vote? That's silly. Edit: Has xDaunt made his post? I'm really interested in what he has to say. My post election post on my facebook centered around why Republicans lost (horrible campaign and horrible ideology). I know why they lost, I'm interested in what xDaunt thinks the Republican party needs to do over the coming years to change.
I was going to make a long post about why as a Hispanic it weighs on me but there's no need, it's really not that complicated. It's simply about the rhetoric and actions the Republican Party have taken recently. New voter ID laws are perceived as an attack on minorities, Arizona's SB 1070 is perceived as prejudiced towards Hispanics, and rightly so in my opinion, self deportation, opposition to the dream act, and random crazy racially tinged statements by Republican Party Officials and the more extreme elements of the party further reinforce the idea that the party is old, white, and male, not exactly welcoming to people of color. And if people (specifically Republicans) who don't understand why its perceived as such, don't care, or don't get why minorities, specifically Latinos, would feel negatively towards these policies and towards the party in general, then you will never get it, and you will continue to lose elections. And if someone posts how these policies aren't racially bias and shouldn't affect Latino perception, then you proved my point, it's not about what you think, it's about what the growing Latino population thinks. There is some good news, it can be done, see GW.
|
On November 08 2012 02:25 ampson wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 02:16 BlueLanterna wrote:On November 08 2012 01:57 ampson wrote:On November 08 2012 01:48 Chargelot wrote:On November 08 2012 01:43 ampson wrote:On November 07 2012 22:09 Monsen wrote:On November 07 2012 21:42 Poorlilrich wrote:On November 07 2012 21:36 konadora wrote:
i have never been to america but i honestly wanted obama to win for the sake for america, its citizens and the world. so glad obama won and america proving it still had some humanity and common sense left in them. based on what exactly, you didnt like the big bad republican like everyone else? im not sure why people are celebrating so hard, nothing has changed and obama will continue to run up the debt to astronomical levels until investors are so shit scared of spending money in america that the market will recede harder than it did the first time. but gay marriage and free contraception are all that matters, right? That, and avoiding a president from an anti science, anti intellectual, faith over reason base of evangelical lunatics. (You know, the ones that have taken over the republican party in the last decade+ and are now getting the tinfoil hats out, because President Satan Mc Blacky will not only ruin the economy but also come and take away their guns/bibles.) Sorry, but the w/rest of the world is kinda big on basing decisions on Science and Reason and would like the "leader of the free world" to share those values. Thus the celebrating. No offense to people wearing magic underwear of course, to each his own. You clearly know very little about Mitt Romney, conservatism, the United States, or the republican party. So, fuck you. All Germans are clearly asshats like you (I can generalize too!). His assessment was not extremely off. Science expenditures by the federal gov't have been higher under republican leadership in the past 20 years, with the exception of Obama's stimulus, which blew up spending everywhere. Fact. Mitt Romney's stance is that evolution, not ID or creationism should be taught in class rooms. Fact. I fail to see how this is anti-intellectual. Only about half of the Republican Party is evangelical and guess what? Religion is not an indicator of anti-intellectualism. There aren't a ton of tinfoil hats and nobody is calling Obama Satan McBlacky. His assessment was very far off. Anti-intellectual does not directly entail that he believes ID should be taught in the classroom, you have to extrapolate his view that "federal government does not belong in education", so passing off the responsibility to the state and local level WOULD be anti-intellectual, it would mean that all the assholes who want to push for their version of history, their version of american politics, etc. would be free to do so as they please without oversight from the federal government, just like they've done with our textbooks in TX. And actually, there are a lot of people calling Obama "Satan" and the anti-Christ and all sorts of other things, where have you been the past 4 years? And you're making a false correlation between evangelism and religion in this situation, evangelism and adhering to it undoubtedly gives you a more anti-intellectual stance on some issues because your rationale is not being informed by facts, only by your religious text and whatever interpretation you and whoever around you creates of it. Also I'd like to know where you got these "science" numbers from, they must be drastically different from something like the NASA budget, which has fallen in every administration except the Clinton years since Kennedy I said in the past 20 years, as that is the most accurate representation of recent policies. There's the graph. The spike in spending is the stimulus, which blew up spending in every category. No mainstream republican has been calling obama satan in the past four years, you are looking at radicals with nothing to lose and assuming it's true of an entire party. They have said that he is ineffective and a bad leader, yes. Satan, no. Bush actually increased the NASA budget. And no, I will not equate evangelicalism with anti-intellectualism. Making decisions with morals based on religion is not stupid, it is what is seen by many as character. Obviously some might not agree, but the republican party is definitely not anti-intellectual.
Actually there are plenty of cases where making decisions with morals based on religion is very stupid, foolhardy, and gets people killed out of ignorance. And yes, sorry to burst your bubble but the Republican party has moved steadily towards anti-intellectualism becoming accepted, you must not read into a lot of their policies on education/foreign affairs/defense spending.
edit: Also the NASA budget as a percentage of national spending HAS gone down in just about every administration like I said, your graph does not address that fact because it's putting hard numbers on research, it's not a proportional figure.
|
I'm now kicking myself for missing ABC coverage yesterday...
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the republican target message for immigrants seem to be that they are for good family values and growing the economy.
kind of ignoring the fact that immigrants typically work low paying service jobs where labor rights is a real concern. it's democrats standing for that.
immigrant employing and owned local and small businesses suffer tax and regulatory burden while big guys have political influence to fight it off. to reduce this burden you have to balance the tax burden and actually collect the taxes long overdue. (the greece situation is a pretty nasty illustration of how chronic tax evasion can fuck your shit up) these trends have been going on for decades and won't reverse themselves without strong political action. this action certainly won't come from guys paid for by the same guys it is targeted against.
|
On November 08 2012 03:28 D10 wrote:
Its a bad time to be an american voter, im all for obama beating romney, but its sadly disgusting how little options you guys have when voting
Its like choosing between burgers and hotdogs, the difference is marginal, democrats are prone to internal disagreements and caving in to every republican hate-move
And repubs are the flaming guy that doesnt want the fire to be out because god is gonna save him
yeah couldn't stop thinking about that yesterday either. Not that I'm sad or care that much about the US-system because frankly speaking they can do whatever they want but I wondered what would happen if people had more diversity all night long.
Completly out of curiosity though, nothing else :p
I mean I'm feeling pissed about german elections and the fact that I've basicly only got 4 options and each of those options has something I don't like (naturally, unless we have more parties than people that's always going to be the case :p) and I'm therefore stuck thinking "well I don't really want *THAT*".
|
On November 08 2012 03:30 BlueLanterna wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 02:25 ampson wrote:On November 08 2012 02:16 BlueLanterna wrote:On November 08 2012 01:57 ampson wrote:On November 08 2012 01:48 Chargelot wrote:On November 08 2012 01:43 ampson wrote:On November 07 2012 22:09 Monsen wrote:On November 07 2012 21:42 Poorlilrich wrote:On November 07 2012 21:36 konadora wrote:
i have never been to america but i honestly wanted obama to win for the sake for america, its citizens and the world. so glad obama won and america proving it still had some humanity and common sense left in them. based on what exactly, you didnt like the big bad republican like everyone else? im not sure why people are celebrating so hard, nothing has changed and obama will continue to run up the debt to astronomical levels until investors are so shit scared of spending money in america that the market will recede harder than it did the first time. but gay marriage and free contraception are all that matters, right? That, and avoiding a president from an anti science, anti intellectual, faith over reason base of evangelical lunatics. (You know, the ones that have taken over the republican party in the last decade+ and are now getting the tinfoil hats out, because President Satan Mc Blacky will not only ruin the economy but also come and take away their guns/bibles.) Sorry, but the w/rest of the world is kinda big on basing decisions on Science and Reason and would like the "leader of the free world" to share those values. Thus the celebrating. No offense to people wearing magic underwear of course, to each his own. You clearly know very little about Mitt Romney, conservatism, the United States, or the republican party. So, fuck you. All Germans are clearly asshats like you (I can generalize too!). His assessment was not extremely off. Science expenditures by the federal gov't have been higher under republican leadership in the past 20 years, with the exception of Obama's stimulus, which blew up spending everywhere. Fact. Mitt Romney's stance is that evolution, not ID or creationism should be taught in class rooms. Fact. I fail to see how this is anti-intellectual. Only about half of the Republican Party is evangelical and guess what? Religion is not an indicator of anti-intellectualism. There aren't a ton of tinfoil hats and nobody is calling Obama Satan McBlacky. His assessment was very far off. Anti-intellectual does not directly entail that he believes ID should be taught in the classroom, you have to extrapolate his view that "federal government does not belong in education", so passing off the responsibility to the state and local level WOULD be anti-intellectual, it would mean that all the assholes who want to push for their version of history, their version of american politics, etc. would be free to do so as they please without oversight from the federal government, just like they've done with our textbooks in TX. And actually, there are a lot of people calling Obama "Satan" and the anti-Christ and all sorts of other things, where have you been the past 4 years? And you're making a false correlation between evangelism and religion in this situation, evangelism and adhering to it undoubtedly gives you a more anti-intellectual stance on some issues because your rationale is not being informed by facts, only by your religious text and whatever interpretation you and whoever around you creates of it. Also I'd like to know where you got these "science" numbers from, they must be drastically different from something like the NASA budget, which has fallen in every administration except the Clinton years since Kennedy I said in the past 20 years, as that is the most accurate representation of recent policies. There's the graph. The spike in spending is the stimulus, which blew up spending in every category. No mainstream republican has been calling obama satan in the past four years, you are looking at radicals with nothing to lose and assuming it's true of an entire party. They have said that he is ineffective and a bad leader, yes. Satan, no. Bush actually increased the NASA budget. And no, I will not equate evangelicalism with anti-intellectualism. Making decisions with morals based on religion is not stupid, it is what is seen by many as character. Obviously some might not agree, but the republican party is definitely not anti-intellectual. Actually there are plenty of cases where making decisions with morals based on religion is very stupid, foolhardy, and gets people killed out of ignorance. And yes, sorry to burst your bubble but the Republican party has moved steadily towards anti-intellectualism becoming accepted, you must not read into a lot of their policies on education/foreign affairs/defense spending. edit: Also the NASA budget as a percentage of national spending HAS gone down in just about every administration like I said, your graph does not address that fact because it's putting hard numbers on research, it's not a proportional figure.
Making decisions on political ideology gets people killed out of ignorance as well. So let's not go too crazy on the generalizations.
As for Republican's going 'anti-intellectualism' - if you have a problem with a particular policy then argue against it. Don't just demonize the other side. That just makes you look anti-intellectual.
|
On November 08 2012 03:30 BlueLanterna wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 02:25 ampson wrote:On November 08 2012 02:16 BlueLanterna wrote:On November 08 2012 01:57 ampson wrote:On November 08 2012 01:48 Chargelot wrote:On November 08 2012 01:43 ampson wrote:On November 07 2012 22:09 Monsen wrote:On November 07 2012 21:42 Poorlilrich wrote:On November 07 2012 21:36 konadora wrote:
i have never been to america but i honestly wanted obama to win for the sake for america, its citizens and the world. so glad obama won and america proving it still had some humanity and common sense left in them. based on what exactly, you didnt like the big bad republican like everyone else? im not sure why people are celebrating so hard, nothing has changed and obama will continue to run up the debt to astronomical levels until investors are so shit scared of spending money in america that the market will recede harder than it did the first time. but gay marriage and free contraception are all that matters, right? That, and avoiding a president from an anti science, anti intellectual, faith over reason base of evangelical lunatics. (You know, the ones that have taken over the republican party in the last decade+ and are now getting the tinfoil hats out, because President Satan Mc Blacky will not only ruin the economy but also come and take away their guns/bibles.) Sorry, but the w/rest of the world is kinda big on basing decisions on Science and Reason and would like the "leader of the free world" to share those values. Thus the celebrating. No offense to people wearing magic underwear of course, to each his own. You clearly know very little about Mitt Romney, conservatism, the United States, or the republican party. So, fuck you. All Germans are clearly asshats like you (I can generalize too!). His assessment was not extremely off. Science expenditures by the federal gov't have been higher under republican leadership in the past 20 years, with the exception of Obama's stimulus, which blew up spending everywhere. Fact. Mitt Romney's stance is that evolution, not ID or creationism should be taught in class rooms. Fact. I fail to see how this is anti-intellectual. Only about half of the Republican Party is evangelical and guess what? Religion is not an indicator of anti-intellectualism. There aren't a ton of tinfoil hats and nobody is calling Obama Satan McBlacky. His assessment was very far off. Anti-intellectual does not directly entail that he believes ID should be taught in the classroom, you have to extrapolate his view that "federal government does not belong in education", so passing off the responsibility to the state and local level WOULD be anti-intellectual, it would mean that all the assholes who want to push for their version of history, their version of american politics, etc. would be free to do so as they please without oversight from the federal government, just like they've done with our textbooks in TX. And actually, there are a lot of people calling Obama "Satan" and the anti-Christ and all sorts of other things, where have you been the past 4 years? And you're making a false correlation between evangelism and religion in this situation, evangelism and adhering to it undoubtedly gives you a more anti-intellectual stance on some issues because your rationale is not being informed by facts, only by your religious text and whatever interpretation you and whoever around you creates of it. Also I'd like to know where you got these "science" numbers from, they must be drastically different from something like the NASA budget, which has fallen in every administration except the Clinton years since Kennedy I said in the past 20 years, as that is the most accurate representation of recent policies. There's the graph. The spike in spending is the stimulus, which blew up spending in every category. No mainstream republican has been calling obama satan in the past four years, you are looking at radicals with nothing to lose and assuming it's true of an entire party. They have said that he is ineffective and a bad leader, yes. Satan, no. Bush actually increased the NASA budget. And no, I will not equate evangelicalism with anti-intellectualism. Making decisions with morals based on religion is not stupid, it is what is seen by many as character. Obviously some might not agree, but the republican party is definitely not anti-intellectual. Actually there are plenty of cases where making decisions with morals based on religion is very stupid, foolhardy, and gets people killed out of ignorance. And yes, sorry to burst your bubble but the Republican party has moved steadily towards anti-intellectualism becoming accepted, you must not read into a lot of their policies on education/foreign affairs/defense spending. edit: Also the NASA budget as a percentage of national spending HAS gone down in just about every administration like I said, your graph does not address that fact because it's putting hard numbers on research, it's not a proportional figure.
Check the video posted a few pages back, and Neil DeGrasse Tyson will TELL you that Bush helped out NASA. And arguing that religious morals are worse than any other morals (as you are doing) is useless. Morals are subjective. I can look at any set of morals and pull out dozens of terrible events that were caused by it. Thanks for all that evidence though.
|
On November 08 2012 03:25 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 03:07 ampson wrote:On November 08 2012 02:58 ZasZ. wrote:On November 08 2012 02:25 ampson wrote:On November 08 2012 02:16 BlueLanterna wrote:On November 08 2012 01:57 ampson wrote:On November 08 2012 01:48 Chargelot wrote:On November 08 2012 01:43 ampson wrote:On November 07 2012 22:09 Monsen wrote:On November 07 2012 21:42 Poorlilrich wrote:
[quote]
based on what exactly, you didnt like the big bad republican like everyone else? im not sure why people are celebrating so hard, nothing has changed and obama will continue to run up the debt to astronomical levels until investors are so shit scared of spending money in america that the market will recede harder than it did the first time. but gay marriage and free contraception are all that matters, right? That, and avoiding a president from an anti science, anti intellectual, faith over reason base of evangelical lunatics. (You know, the ones that have taken over the republican party in the last decade+ and are now getting the tinfoil hats out, because President Satan Mc Blacky will not only ruin the economy but also come and take away their guns/bibles.) Sorry, but the w/rest of the world is kinda big on basing decisions on Science and Reason and would like the "leader of the free world" to share those values. Thus the celebrating. No offense to people wearing magic underwear of course, to each his own. You clearly know very little about Mitt Romney, conservatism, the United States, or the republican party. So, fuck you. All Germans are clearly asshats like you (I can generalize too!). His assessment was not extremely off. Science expenditures by the federal gov't have been higher under republican leadership in the past 20 years, with the exception of Obama's stimulus, which blew up spending everywhere. Fact. Mitt Romney's stance is that evolution, not ID or creationism should be taught in class rooms. Fact. I fail to see how this is anti-intellectual. Only about half of the Republican Party is evangelical and guess what? Religion is not an indicator of anti-intellectualism. There aren't a ton of tinfoil hats and nobody is calling Obama Satan McBlacky. His assessment was very far off. Anti-intellectual does not directly entail that he believes ID should be taught in the classroom, you have to extrapolate his view that "federal government does not belong in education", so passing off the responsibility to the state and local level WOULD be anti-intellectual, it would mean that all the assholes who want to push for their version of history, their version of american politics, etc. would be free to do so as they please without oversight from the federal government, just like they've done with our textbooks in TX. And actually, there are a lot of people calling Obama "Satan" and the anti-Christ and all sorts of other things, where have you been the past 4 years? And you're making a false correlation between evangelism and religion in this situation, evangelism and adhering to it undoubtedly gives you a more anti-intellectual stance on some issues because your rationale is not being informed by facts, only by your religious text and whatever interpretation you and whoever around you creates of it. Also I'd like to know where you got these "science" numbers from, they must be drastically different from something like the NASA budget, which has fallen in every administration except the Clinton years since Kennedy I said in the past 20 years, as that is the most accurate representation of recent policies. There's the graph. The spike in spending is the stimulus, which blew up spending in every category. No mainstream republican has been calling obama satan in the past four years, you are looking at radicals with nothing to lose and assuming it's true of an entire party. They have said that he is ineffective and a bad leader, yes. Satan, no. Bush actually increased the NASA budget. And no, I will not equate evangelicalism with anti-intellectualism. Making decisions with morals based on religion is not stupid, it is what is seen by many as character. Obviously some might not agree, but the republican party is definitely not anti-intellectual. There is a difference between making decisions with morals based on religion and believing something despite factual evidence based on religion. While I don't agree with their brand of morals, I can respect people who oppose gay marriage or abortion because of their religious values. It's not my place to question the basis for someone else's ethical beliefs. The reason evangelicals are associated with anti-intellectualism is because they flat out refuse intellectualism. The theory of evolution can fit into religious teachings, but they flat out refuse factual evidence. Not to mention that you have prominent evangelical Republicans (Santorum) coming out and publicly saying they don't want to be associated with intellectuals. When a man almost nominated for the presidential ticket comes forward to say that ignorance is his preferred mode of operation, it's worrisome to the rest of us. They shun education and intelligence like it's a disease America is currently suffering from. It's disturbing, quite frankly, and brings down the rest of the Republican base that is intellectual and is just looking for a more conservative political party than the Democrats without dealing with the crazy religious nuts. Not sure which Santorum comment you are referring to, but I'll assume it's the "snob" comment directed towards Obama. That was just saying that a college education is not the right choice for everyone. Nowhere has Santorum straight- up said intellectualism is bad. Anyways, there's a reason that the man wasn't elected. Evangelicals are not a majority of the Republican party as the first poster (who was a douche) said they were. Crazy evangelicals who flat out refuse anything scientific are a VERY small minority within the party, while he was generalizing that the entire republican party was this way. Can't find the exact quote from a reputable source after a quick internet search, but it was something like "Intellectuals will never be on our side." If you have ostracized the educated voter-base to the point where they will "never be on your side," that is an issue. But you're right, there is a reason Republicans didn't choose him for the national ticket, and I am glad there isn't a larger evangelical presence within the Republican party. Unfortunately for the rest of you, this small evangelical minority is by far the most vocal and most visible portion of the party. Blame that on where the money is or the liberal media, it doesn't matter, but the point is that moderate voters like myself, who want to reel in government spending and be more conservative fiscally, but not compromise on important social issues like gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, or abortion absolutely cannot associate ourselves with that evangelical minority that is fueled by hate and ignorance. I agree with the posters calling for a split in the Republican party. If an actual contender could come forward who really believes in limited government, including not getting involved with marriage rights, abortion, etc. I would have backed them in a heartbeat in this election.
This doesn't sound like the Santorum quote you're looking for, but it's related and equally telling:
Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum said Thursday that President Obama wants more young adults to go to college so they can undergo “indoctrination” to a secular world view. On the president’s efforts to boost college attendance, Santorum said, “I understand why Barack Obama wants to send every kid to college, because of their indoctrination mills, absolutely … The indoctrination that is going on at the university level is a harm to our country.” He claimed that “62 percent of kids who go into college with a faith commitment leave without it,” but declined to cite a source for the figure. And he floated the idea of requiring that universities that receive public funds have “intellectual diversity” on campus. Source
That sounds pretty anti-intellectual to me. If your faith can't withstand talking with people and learning new things... perhaps it isn't as strong as you think it is. Regardless, I don't think the answer is sheltering kids from new ideas.
Also, I realize Santorum hasn't been an issue for a while. He was still the runner up in the primary. While a majority doesn't agree with him, he resonated with enough of the Republican base to scare a lot of people. We weren't scared that he would win, I think he clearly had no chance in a general election. It was scary because he had enough support to even be a contender, instead of some fringe candidate.
|
On November 08 2012 03:36 oneofthem wrote:
the republican target message for immigrants seem to be that they are for good family values and growing the economy.
kind of ignoring the fact that immigrants typically work low paying service jobs where labor rights is a real concern. it's democrats standing for that.
immigrant employing and owned local and small businesses suffer tax and regulatory burden while big guys have political influence to fight it off. to reduce this burden you have to balance the tax burden and actually collect the taxes long overdue. (the greece situation is a pretty nasty illustration of how chronic tax evasion can fuck your shit up) these trends have been going on for decades and won't reverse themselves without strong political action. this action certainly won't come from guys paid for by the same guys it is targeted against.
There's always a political tradeoff though. Dems are better at protecting labor rights but Reps are better at making the playing field between small and big businesses level. Dems talk a good game on the second point, but their policies generally shift the advantage to the big players.
|
On November 08 2012 03:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 03:30 BlueLanterna wrote:On November 08 2012 02:25 ampson wrote:On November 08 2012 02:16 BlueLanterna wrote:On November 08 2012 01:57 ampson wrote:On November 08 2012 01:48 Chargelot wrote:On November 08 2012 01:43 ampson wrote:On November 07 2012 22:09 Monsen wrote:On November 07 2012 21:42 Poorlilrich wrote:On November 07 2012 21:36 konadora wrote:
i have never been to america but i honestly wanted obama to win for the sake for america, its citizens and the world. so glad obama won and america proving it still had some humanity and common sense left in them. based on what exactly, you didnt like the big bad republican like everyone else? im not sure why people are celebrating so hard, nothing has changed and obama will continue to run up the debt to astronomical levels until investors are so shit scared of spending money in america that the market will recede harder than it did the first time. but gay marriage and free contraception are all that matters, right? That, and avoiding a president from an anti science, anti intellectual, faith over reason base of evangelical lunatics. (You know, the ones that have taken over the republican party in the last decade+ and are now getting the tinfoil hats out, because President Satan Mc Blacky will not only ruin the economy but also come and take away their guns/bibles.) Sorry, but the w/rest of the world is kinda big on basing decisions on Science and Reason and would like the "leader of the free world" to share those values. Thus the celebrating. No offense to people wearing magic underwear of course, to each his own. You clearly know very little about Mitt Romney, conservatism, the United States, or the republican party. So, fuck you. All Germans are clearly asshats like you (I can generalize too!). His assessment was not extremely off. Science expenditures by the federal gov't have been higher under republican leadership in the past 20 years, with the exception of Obama's stimulus, which blew up spending everywhere. Fact. Mitt Romney's stance is that evolution, not ID or creationism should be taught in class rooms. Fact. I fail to see how this is anti-intellectual. Only about half of the Republican Party is evangelical and guess what? Religion is not an indicator of anti-intellectualism. There aren't a ton of tinfoil hats and nobody is calling Obama Satan McBlacky. His assessment was very far off. Anti-intellectual does not directly entail that he believes ID should be taught in the classroom, you have to extrapolate his view that "federal government does not belong in education", so passing off the responsibility to the state and local level WOULD be anti-intellectual, it would mean that all the assholes who want to push for their version of history, their version of american politics, etc. would be free to do so as they please without oversight from the federal government, just like they've done with our textbooks in TX. And actually, there are a lot of people calling Obama "Satan" and the anti-Christ and all sorts of other things, where have you been the past 4 years? And you're making a false correlation between evangelism and religion in this situation, evangelism and adhering to it undoubtedly gives you a more anti-intellectual stance on some issues because your rationale is not being informed by facts, only by your religious text and whatever interpretation you and whoever around you creates of it. Also I'd like to know where you got these "science" numbers from, they must be drastically different from something like the NASA budget, which has fallen in every administration except the Clinton years since Kennedy I said in the past 20 years, as that is the most accurate representation of recent policies. There's the graph. The spike in spending is the stimulus, which blew up spending in every category. No mainstream republican has been calling obama satan in the past four years, you are looking at radicals with nothing to lose and assuming it's true of an entire party. They have said that he is ineffective and a bad leader, yes. Satan, no. Bush actually increased the NASA budget. And no, I will not equate evangelicalism with anti-intellectualism. Making decisions with morals based on religion is not stupid, it is what is seen by many as character. Obviously some might not agree, but the republican party is definitely not anti-intellectual. Actually there are plenty of cases where making decisions with morals based on religion is very stupid, foolhardy, and gets people killed out of ignorance. And yes, sorry to burst your bubble but the Republican party has moved steadily towards anti-intellectualism becoming accepted, you must not read into a lot of their policies on education/foreign affairs/defense spending. edit: Also the NASA budget as a percentage of national spending HAS gone down in just about every administration like I said, your graph does not address that fact because it's putting hard numbers on research, it's not a proportional figure. Making decisions on political ideology gets people killed out of ignorance as well. So let's not go too crazy on the generalizations. As for Republican's going 'anti-intellectualism' - if you have a problem with a particular policy then argue against it. Don't just demonize the other side. That just makes you look anti-intellectual.
We'd be here all day if we were to make comments on all the ridiculous positions the Republican party has taken from Gay's to rape victims and women rights it's a pretty large shithole.
And most of them are on anti-intellectual basis and just on the ignorance of religion. Supporting the idea that a person being raped becoming pregnant is somewhat gods plan is about as idiotic and "insert every definition of a moron" as you could possibly be. What blind ignorance to say "yeah god didn't mean the rape, he was just there to make sure you remember it forever and ever"
|
On November 08 2012 03:28 ampson wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 03:25 ZasZ. wrote:On November 08 2012 03:07 ampson wrote:On November 08 2012 02:58 ZasZ. wrote:On November 08 2012 02:25 ampson wrote:On November 08 2012 02:16 BlueLanterna wrote:On November 08 2012 01:57 ampson wrote:On November 08 2012 01:48 Chargelot wrote:On November 08 2012 01:43 ampson wrote:On November 07 2012 22:09 Monsen wrote:
[quote]
That, and avoiding a president from an anti science, anti intellectual, faith over reason base of evangelical lunatics.
(You know, the ones that have taken over the republican party in the last decade+ and are now getting the tinfoil hats out, because President Satan Mc Blacky will not only ruin the economy but also come and take away their guns/bibles.)
Sorry, but the w/rest of the world is kinda big on basing decisions on Science and Reason and would like the "leader of the free world" to share those values. Thus the celebrating.
No offense to people wearing magic underwear of course, to each his own.
You clearly know very little about Mitt Romney, conservatism, the United States, or the republican party. So, fuck you. All Germans are clearly asshats like you (I can generalize too!). His assessment was not extremely off. Science expenditures by the federal gov't have been higher under republican leadership in the past 20 years, with the exception of Obama's stimulus, which blew up spending everywhere. Fact. Mitt Romney's stance is that evolution, not ID or creationism should be taught in class rooms. Fact. I fail to see how this is anti-intellectual. Only about half of the Republican Party is evangelical and guess what? Religion is not an indicator of anti-intellectualism. There aren't a ton of tinfoil hats and nobody is calling Obama Satan McBlacky. His assessment was very far off. Anti-intellectual does not directly entail that he believes ID should be taught in the classroom, you have to extrapolate his view that "federal government does not belong in education", so passing off the responsibility to the state and local level WOULD be anti-intellectual, it would mean that all the assholes who want to push for their version of history, their version of american politics, etc. would be free to do so as they please without oversight from the federal government, just like they've done with our textbooks in TX. And actually, there are a lot of people calling Obama "Satan" and the anti-Christ and all sorts of other things, where have you been the past 4 years? And you're making a false correlation between evangelism and religion in this situation, evangelism and adhering to it undoubtedly gives you a more anti-intellectual stance on some issues because your rationale is not being informed by facts, only by your religious text and whatever interpretation you and whoever around you creates of it. Also I'd like to know where you got these "science" numbers from, they must be drastically different from something like the NASA budget, which has fallen in every administration except the Clinton years since Kennedy I said in the past 20 years, as that is the most accurate representation of recent policies. There's the graph. The spike in spending is the stimulus, which blew up spending in every category. No mainstream republican has been calling obama satan in the past four years, you are looking at radicals with nothing to lose and assuming it's true of an entire party. They have said that he is ineffective and a bad leader, yes. Satan, no. Bush actually increased the NASA budget. And no, I will not equate evangelicalism with anti-intellectualism. Making decisions with morals based on religion is not stupid, it is what is seen by many as character. Obviously some might not agree, but the republican party is definitely not anti-intellectual. There is a difference between making decisions with morals based on religion and believing something despite factual evidence based on religion. While I don't agree with their brand of morals, I can respect people who oppose gay marriage or abortion because of their religious values. It's not my place to question the basis for someone else's ethical beliefs. The reason evangelicals are associated with anti-intellectualism is because they flat out refuse intellectualism. The theory of evolution can fit into religious teachings, but they flat out refuse factual evidence. Not to mention that you have prominent evangelical Republicans (Santorum) coming out and publicly saying they don't want to be associated with intellectuals. When a man almost nominated for the presidential ticket comes forward to say that ignorance is his preferred mode of operation, it's worrisome to the rest of us. They shun education and intelligence like it's a disease America is currently suffering from. It's disturbing, quite frankly, and brings down the rest of the Republican base that is intellectual and is just looking for a more conservative political party than the Democrats without dealing with the crazy religious nuts. Not sure which Santorum comment you are referring to, but I'll assume it's the "snob" comment directed towards Obama. That was just saying that a college education is not the right choice for everyone. Nowhere has Santorum straight- up said intellectualism is bad. Anyways, there's a reason that the man wasn't elected. Evangelicals are not a majority of the Republican party as the first poster (who was a douche) said they were. Crazy evangelicals who flat out refuse anything scientific are a VERY small minority within the party, while he was generalizing that the entire republican party was this way. Can't find the exact quote from a reputable source after a quick internet search, but it was something like "Intellectuals will never be on our side." If you have ostracized the educated voter-base to the point where they will "never be on your side," that is an issue. But you're right, there is a reason Republicans didn't choose him for the national ticket, and I am glad there isn't a larger evangelical presence within the Republican party. Unfortunately for the rest of you, this small evangelical minority is by far the most vocal and most visible portion of the party. Blame that on where the money is or the liberal media, it doesn't matter, but the point is that moderate voters like myself, who want to reel in government spending and be more conservative fiscally, but not compromise on important social issues like gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, or abortion absolutely cannot associate ourselves with that evangelical minority that is fueled by hate and ignorance. I agree with the posters calling for a split in the Republican party. If an actual contender could come forward who really believes in limited government, including not getting involved with marriage rights, abortion, etc. I would have backed them in a heartbeat in this election. Did you vote Gary Johnson? He's your man. Sadly, the Libertarian party is very small. Also, Santorum said something like smart people will never be on our side when he had already lost the primary. He was just mouthing off, and said it at like a dinner or something. He was speaking to lower-class Americans and meant something along the lines of "liberal elite" when he said smart. I don't condone anything he does, but that's the explanation.
"Actual contender" being the key phrase in my post. I liked what I saw from Gary Johnson, but at the end of the day and being in a battleground state (Colorado) I couldn't with good conscience throw my vote away to a third party candidate when the actual race was so close between a candidate I felt strongly about (Romney) and a candidate I felt not so strongly about (Obama).
If all Santorum meant was that secondary education isn't for everyone, I'd agree with him, but if that is what he was trying to convey he did it poorly. We need people in manufacturing, janitorial jobs, construction, etc. and a secondary education is not required. But first generation immigrants who are forced to work three low-income jobs should be able to send their children to college if they work hard enough. Education should be the aspiration of all, even if it's not meant for all. It ties in perfectly to the "American Dream." We tell people they can do anything they want if they try hard enough, but that's not always true is it? Some people are lazy, or unintelligent, or just the victim of circumstance and will never make it in this world. It doesn't mean they shouldn't try or aspire to more, or put themselves in a position where their children are able to seize those chances.
|
On November 08 2012 03:36 ragz_gt wrote:
I'm now kicking myself for missing ABC coverage yesterday...
What was particular about ABC's coverage?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
